About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
in afghanistan and pakistan. not later than 120 days after enactment of this act, the entity described in subsection 8, shall submit to the president and the congress, a report. sense of congress, it is the sense of congress that the entity should be modeled on the iraq study group. section 8127, not more than $200 million may be expended -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise. mr. carter: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 31 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. carter of texas. strike lines 6 through 9 relating to military musical units. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: i rise to address an issue i think is very important to the patriotic men and women who fight and defend our country. representative mccollum, in good graces, asked that we restrict the military band funding by $120 million and in an attempt to help with the savings. but the congressional budget office has informed us that this reduction, this $120 million re
a week in afghanistan. among the expenditures, our payment for projects that are rebuilding infrastructure in afghanistan, roads, bridges, schools, in some cases hospitals. "the washington post" recently reported that the afghan government is taxing american aid. we send money there to build a road. we have to hire contractors in order to do that. and the afghan government is trying to tax that money for their own coffers. so it's not enough that our taxpayers are spending billions of dollars on projects to rebuild their infrastructure. the afghan government is literally trying to reach in the pocket and double dip and tax our taxpayers for our taxpayers' generosity in giving them money. . how does that make any sense at all? after this was reported, they are stepping up their efforts to grab that cash. they are doing things like threatening to detain contractors. if they don't pay up, take money that's assigned to build that road and put that money in the afghan covers, the afghan officials are threatening to detain our contractors. they are denying licenses to our contract
rodriguez says he doesn't expect violence in afghanistan to start decreasing until next year. from the pentagon earlier today, this is 45 minutes. >> general rodriguez, it's counselor dave lapin at the pentagon. if you're ready to go, i'll introduce you and we'll get started. >> ok, dave, go ahead, thanks. >> thank you. good morning to those here, good evening in afghanistan. i'd like to welcome pack to the pentagon briefing room, army lieutenant general david rodriguez. he's commander of the international security assistance force joint command, also known as i.j.c. and also the deputy commander of the united states forces afghanistan. general rodriguez's current tour began in june, 2009, he became the first commander of the i.j.c. in october of that year. prior to that, general rodriguez was commander of regional command east for 15 months from january, 2007 to april, 2008. next week after two straight years in command and more than 40 months in after gap stan over the past 4 1/2 year, general rodriguez is ski wruled to change command and return stateside to have u.s. army forces
military engagements in iraq, afghanistan, and now libya. i speak of the need also of a new smart security to keep america safe. today will be my 399th speech. i look forward to reaching number 400 next week, and i will continue this until my last day as a member of congress, which gives me approximately 18 months, 1 1/2 years, time to bring our troops safely home. during this week, the week that the house is debating the appropriations, i thought it would be fitting to focus on more spending, on the staggering costs that taxpayers are being asked to bear for our military occupation. $10 billion a month is a lot of money, and that's the price tag for the privilege of continuing to wage a 10-year war against afghanistan. $10 billion a month. the american people who are writing that check have a right to ask and to get answers to some very important questions. where is that money going and what exactly is it accomplishing? what are we getting for our $10 billion a month? are we more secure here at home? is the afghanistan central government introducing the rule of law? have we not already de
and done, iraq and afghanistan will suck the treasury dry to the tune of at least $3.7 trillion. enough already. mr. chairman, the pentagon is like that teenager. you keep giving the kid the keys to the car and he keeps crashing it. it's time we cut him off. we must draw the line and we must draw it here. no more money for libya. no more continuance in libyan hostilities. i urge my colleagues, support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: the gentleman says we have gone to war in the name of humanity. in other words, the president's war in libya is so that we can preserve humanity in libya. in the history of peoples, as the gentleman from california has pointed out, in the histories of countries, it has always been the king, the dictator, the tyrant, the chief, the leader that has sent that particular country to war. so when our ancestors got together and they formed a new and perfect union, they decided it would not be the leader,
panetta went to iraq and afghanistan. he did not go to pakistan. i take that as a strong message. it is easy when you're in that region to attack on an extra couple of days for an important ally. i think that cross the minds of everyone who planned the trip. it was clearly a conscious decision not to go to pakistan. i think that is in part because when osama bin laden was killed on may 2 there was a list of things that we would ask the pakistan's to do, the pakistani to do, and i have not acted on any of them. this administration also put a hold on a $10 million in assistance. a great way to resolve that is sending the defense secretary to talk to folks about what is going on, but he did not. you are seeing already how differently the pentagon will treat allies in the region. "the in this morning's financial times" they had this headline -- guest: the withdrawal deadline is aggressive. they're talking about getting half of the troops out during the prime fighting season. they do not fight as much during the wintertime. we are starting to withdraw troops during a tumultuous situat
in iraq, afghanistan, and elsewhere. what we need to do is have a growth agenda. we need to reprioritize. so instead of subsidizing off-shore jobs, we are subsidizing the growth of manufacturing here in the united states. let me make my second point. this is what the is about. republicans put a bill on the floor that they call cut, cap, and balance. i called it cut, cap, balance, wink, and nod. it absolutely wasn't real. if you just lost your job, because it was out sourced. if you are the c.e.o., you made the million dollars, you get a $100,000 check in the mail tax cut. how is that fair? backbone of the american economy. and the bill on the floor was a kick to the stomach. we need solutions defend middle class than those who provide tax holes for the middle class. host: i want to ask about yesterday what was provided for the public? guest: if you were an auto broker, yeah, it was a good deal. but going into that deal, most was recouped. at the end of the process, yes, over $1 billion, if you are an auto worker, and you are checked your job, and we have a job analysis in the united stat
of iraq and afghanistan, it would take a serious look out of social security and medicare and in many cases contributing to this deficit. and it would say that those who benefit from ethanol subsidies and oil company tax breaks, the wealthiest people in this country would have to pay a little bit more to pay their fair share. something like that is what should be on the floor here this afternoon because it can pass, the president can sign it and it can solve the fiscal problems of this country or take us in the right direction. but we don't have something like that. instead we have a plan that says the following and puts it in the constitution, the guy who runs an ethanol company who gets massive public subsidies can make profits is completely left alone. he doesn't have to do anything. but for the woman who cleans his office at night is going to have to pay more to go to college, more for health care for herself, her children and her parents and more for just about anything she wants in her life. there's something wrong with that picture. sacrifice that is broadly shared is needed in
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)